Great Bigfoot video analysis on the Mission BF

In July last year 2013, a video surfaced showing what looks like another Bigfoot sighting.

A couple were hiking on a logging road above one of the lakes in Mission, BC, when taking photos of the scenic views they spotted something
moving. Even though they were a fair distance away they were still able to zoom in enough to see something standing upright.

Perhaps you might remember it. I just found a very interesting analysis someone did of the original video. Something about it caught his eye and he
gives a very clear demonstration that what ever was walking around up there, had an ability that no other human has. I'll let you be the judge.

that was really interesting.....the tape isn't real clear but is enough to see the biomechanics...and his testing of it was very simple.....that was
no human for sure.....is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million
dollar man etc etc

he pointed out, that every one of them have longer fur around the neck and the waist to hide to 2 parts of the costume that are separate.....I was
looking for that but the video is not that clear.

now the patterson film from the 60's that big foot has the SAME length fur at the neck and the waist.

That Patterson film is the best historical benchmark for Bigfoot imo. Just google yourself "Bigfoot suit" and compare it to the Patterson BF.
They're not very good and the legs give it away. The only way you could ever find something similar today is in Hollywood but not in the 60's.

is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million dollar man etc etc

That Patterson film is the best historical benchmark for Bigfoot imo. Just google yourself "Bigfoot suit" and compare it to the Patterson BF.
They're not very good and the legs give it away. The only way you could ever find something similar today is in Hollywood but not in the 60's.

In the nineties, Strange Magazine tried to verify the rumors that John Chambers created the suit for the Patterson film. Chambers, of course, is the
Hollywood make-up artist famous for creating the ape suits in the original PLANET OF THE APES. And, more recently, he was featured as a character in
the film ARGO and was played by John Goodman.

The article suggests it may have been a modified version of a costume Chambers made (uncredited) for "Lost in Space".

The article is unable to find a smoking gun. But it's very well-researched and worth reading if you interested in the "man in a suit hypothesis".
I think you can still find the article online.

Yeah i'm sure all kinds of folk will have something to say to substantiate their suspicions. Blurred lines between rumors and truth all the time. I
can look at the article but you know what nails it for me? The anatomical difference and in the legs when striding compared to that of a human.
Specifically, the angular degree of the front shin bone. Breasts is the other one. Here, don't take my word for it. Analysis by ThinkerThunker.

a reply to: FlySolo
The walk is completely consistent with a modern human in a costume. I remember an anthropologist explaining to Meldrum that it would be difficult to
walk any other way in floppy footwear and there is nothing about this film that couldn't be faked. Meldrum himself agreed (but thinks it's a bigfoot
anyway).

The back story to this is shady enough to be comical, no one knows how or when the film was developed, only that it wasn't done the way originally
claimed. Gimlin's story changes a lot cover the years also.

What do you do after you get the only film of a really real Bigfoot? Surely you go back to the area ? No, apparently when the money starts rolling in
($200k in first year) you never bother going back to the area...ever.

Though he did go looking for bigfoot in Thailand (lol).

This pic taken at his "ape canyon" camp apparently......as bogus as it gets.

Yeah i'm sure all kinds of folk will have something to say to substantiate their suspicions. Blurred lines between rumors and truth all the time. I
can look at the article but you know what nails it for me? The anatomical difference and in the legs when striding compared to that of a human.
Specifically, the angular degree of the front shin bone. Breasts is the other one. Here, don't take my word for it. Analysis by ThinkerThunker.

As for your point about angles and so on. It's usually the debunkers who bring out the arrows and the protractors. But, whoever brings them out,
they make my eyes roll. Lens distortion makes these measurements debatable enough to render then virtually irrelevant.

What's impressive about the Patterson Film is that in the 45+ years since it was shot, it has never been 100% debunked. There are things about it
suggestive of a hoax. But there are things that point in the other direction as well.

It's all very circumstantial. The same could be said of Stanley Kubrick filming the moon landing. Patty was filmed in Oct 1967, the first Planet of
the Apes came out in 1968. I find it hard to think Chambers not only created a costume and directed the Patterson film but had time to prepare for
Planet of the Apes. Filming took place between May 21–August 10, 1967. It would mean two-months later he would have to return to Cali to do Patty.
Then he would have to begin the rest of the 5-part series from 1968-1973. I doubt 2-months is enough time get all the logistics down from the time
he's was asked to hoax a BF and to put together a costume and film it. Not only that, but did Chambers include bouncing breasts?

that was really interesting.....the tape isn't real clear but is enough to see the biomechanics...and his testing of it was very simple.....that was
no human for sure.....is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million
dollar man etc etc

he pointed out, that every one of them have longer fur around the neck and the waist to hide to 2 parts of the costume that are separate.....I was
looking for that but the video is not that clear.

now the patterson film from the 60's that big foot has the SAME length fur at the neck and the waist.

there are 10 pages explaining the differences and how hard it would be to make a costume like in the patterson film, below that are the pictures
makes a great point...hollywoods best, with tons of money can't make a costume like the patterson film

another point, if the patterson film is a man in a costume .....the person who made itwould have had an amazing career in hollywood because what
was made was so much better than the best in hollywood could make...but they never came forward???? to capitalize on this

Monsanto corporation has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Science can in fact merge genes from one species into another. Cloned sheep, or seeds,
or cows milk that produces spiders web. You name it, they can "create" it.

Is this technology new? Some will say, no, its been around thousands of years practiced by past civilizations that choose to conceal themselves from
our prying eyes. I most recently read somewhere Bigfoot is actually a combination of Human and Bear DNA. Sounds good to me............

At any rate, the foot that is left behind, to me, looks like it might be the head of another individual sitting as it appears to move about, going
into and out of view. It could be a family unit enjoying the sunny day...

Is there video of the guy walking like that? I would like to see how fluid his movements are. Anyone can stand in that position.

He had his youtube account suspended (too much 'footer hate, amongst other things, it seems). A shame, he had some good stuff. You could just look at
Meldrum's own mocumentaries where it is debunked many times, the specialists at Stanford certainly couldn't rule out a man in a costume. Though, in my
experience, nothing will convince 'footer enthusiasts anyway.

It is quite amazing to see Meldrum ignore the anthropolgists who tell him the pg subject is a human in proportions, size, locomotion etc
(though obviously with a few b grade movie prop incongruities such as a mixture of male/ female features, hairy breasts, sagital crest without
accompanying abdomin etc)...then ignore the results of his own experiment where he admitted surprise at how easily a human could mimic the
gait...because he just "believes" it's a really real bigfoot.

Then again, Meldrum himself bangs on with the myth about "patty" being over 7' tall, despite knowing full well the source he uses debunked his own
claim as wrong, years ago. The only things continually absent from "bigfoot" science are intelectual integrity, real science...oh, and bigfoot.

It's been debunked many times, though most people never believed it anyway due to common sense or they got up and walked like bigfoot themselves (it's
easy and you'll impress friends and family with the patty "get back stare"!). It's only a handful of crank scientists their somewhat credulous
subculture that cling to this myth. In keeping with pseudo science, where myths remian in perpetuity.

There are better ones even from the '30's if you look around for them. They didn't have the benefit of being shaky, blurry and distant either, but
had to withstand close ups. Another 'footer myth. Not even sure why anyone thinks the pg film is that good?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.